The View From Section 241 -- The 2011 Season | The Boneyard

The View From Section 241 -- The 2011 Season

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
20,292
Reaction Score
44,351
O.K. Last year, in 2010, we finished 8-4 in the regular season with a Fiesta Bowl loss to Oklahoma, tied for the Big East crown at 5-2 in conference, and finished the year with a Sagarin rating of 56 (not as high as we'd been in other years). I predicted 8-4 for 2011. My prediction was based on a better D and better special teams play with most key pieces returning, an easier schedule and one extra home game, balanced out on the negative side by almost total turnover at the offensive skill positions. I did hedge my prediction by saying I wasn't adjusting my pick for the coaching changes because I had no way of predicting how that would effect us, although it was certainly possible that it would effect us. In fact, we went 5-7, 3-4 in conference, and had our Sagarin rating slip to 78.

So what happened to cause us to endure our first losing season since '06? I will look at changes in offense, defense and special teams, and then conclude with some less statistical factors. Before doing so, however, I want to make one key point. The first is that our schedule did not turn out to be easier in '11 than in '10, because our three losable OOC games, Vandy, ISU and WMU, were all against teams that had very strong for them showings in the Sagarins this year (39, 29 and 77, respectively). Thus, our Sagarin SOS in '11 was 64, actually (immaterially) higher than our 65 in '10. Also, we "lost" this season in September. The 3-4 conference showing was not inconsistent with where I thought this team would be. It was the OOC showing that was.

Let's start with special teams. We returned the great Dave Teggart, and he went 22 for 28 on FGs, compared to 25 for 31 last year. So while his overall performance remained very strong given the lengths of many of his makes, his overall percentage went down and, unlike 2010 where his leg won us a game in Tampa, this year he did not (had he been perfect against ISU, where he made two 50 plus FGs but missed two in the 40s, we might have been bowling this year). We returned both Chad Christen for kickoffs and Cole Wagner for Punts, both of whom were clearly getting better as last year went on. This year, Christen did get better. His average went from 64.9 to 65.7, but and touchbacks went up from 9 to 14. I think you saw his leg get stronger, but he struggled a little the first half of the year trying, at the staff's direction, to focus more on the side of the field he was kicking to. I expect more improvement next year. Punting, Cole Wagner's average went down from 41.3 to 41.1, but ratio of punts inside the 20 to touchbacks went from 25 to 9 to 21 to 5. I think, like Christen, he struggled a little early focusing more on direction, but should be better for it in 2012. On kick coverage, punt coverge got materially better this year, giving up only 6.5 a return as opposed to 11.0, but kickoff coverage was worse at 24.2 as opposed to 22.5. The biggest disappointment on specials, of course, was our return game. We went from 8.2 yards per punt return to 5.7, despite the shuffled returners in '10 compared to Nick Williams all year in '11, and on kickoffs we went from 27.0 and 3 TDs to 24.2 and no TDs (although we were seeing substantial improvement here as the year went on). So, while it is hard to summarize a collection of different units, my takeaway is I expected the way that specials finished the year in 2010, combined with returning personnel, for this to be even more of a strength in 2011 than it was in 2010. In fact, it wasn't. Special teams was probably close to neutral this year, and we only got to neutral because FG kickers against us this year was only 9-18. It should also be mentioned that the only two times we had winning records in the Big East, we needed to outplay our opponents on special teams substantially to do so.

What about offense? Coming into the season, everyone was rightfully worried about the loss of everyone at the skill positions, but on the other hand we thought we were fine on the OL and there was some of a "how much worse can the passing game be" attitude. I thought the O might be down from 2010, but not by a huge amount and not by an amount that would stop us from beating mediocre teams at home. What was reality? There has been a lot of discussion about whether our QB play was better, worse, or the same than last year. Our QB efficiency rating went up from 103.7 to 113.2. That is a material gain. Passing yardage went up by 43 yards per game, 2.4 yards per catch and 1.0 yards per pass, and TDs passing went up from 10 to 14 while interceptions were flat at 9. So, once the ball left the QBs hand, we were clearly better in '11 than in '10, and JM clearly produced more than ZF did (and this was all produced with a less threatening running game). You do, however, have to balance that with the negative, which was sacks allowed which, remarkably, went from 15 to 41. Did this reflect worse play on the OL? A QB who, while he threw better, couldn't get rid of the ball quickly enough? An OL struggling with schemes? A staff being more aggressive and putting us in more positions where the D could tee off? Yes, probably, to all of them contributing. But that change in sacks allowed may be the single biggest key to our disappointing season. On the rushing side, we knew we wouldn't be as good without Todman and we weren't. Rushing yardage went down a remarkable 56 yards a game, and 1.4 yards a rush from 4.5 to 3.1 (although that number was greatly influenced by the number of sacks allowed). Total yardage went down from 326 a game to 313, and yards per play went down from 4.6 to 4.0. We had two less first downs in 2011 and 2.4 less points per game. And we were slightly more effective in the redzone (88% to 89% in scoring and 49% to 53% in TD scoring). So the bottom line on offense is that while it was a mixed bag, it went down a little. We saw some life in the passing game, which may give hope for the future, but those gains were unfortunately more than offset by the loss of productivity in the running game and the incredible number of sacks allowed.

It was much more surprisingat least to me, how this year went on defense. We gave up 29 fewer first downs, but 2.3 more points per game. The rushing defense was great, where yardage per game went down from 143 to 86 and yardage per carry 3.9 to 2.7. Those are remarkable gains. Were they caused by sacks? I don't think so. Sacks went up from 27 to 35, which is material but not overwhelming enough to cause these statistical changes. More likely, the running D was this great because the front 7 played the run aggressively every down at the expense of playing the pass. Look at the passing stats. Yards per game allowed went up from 223 to 281, yards per catch from 11.1 to 13.6 and yards per pass from 6.5 to 7.9. We were awful in pass defense this year, period. Total yardage per play went up .2 per snap and per game was flat. Turnovers forced was flat at 31 (although that is a slightly higher number per game this year). My second key stat of the season -- other than sacks allowed -- is TD allowed in the redzone, which went up from 46% to 59%. All we had to do to do better than 2-4 in games decided by 8 points or less was sometimes hold our opponent to a damn FG. Bottom line on D -- we were more aggressive, but it didn't make us better. It made us a sieve on pass defense.

A few more statistical comparisons before I try to giftwrap what happened for the holidays. In 2010 we had 27 fewer penalty yards per game than our opponents. That went down to a 5 yard advantage this year. We were plus 12 on turnovers last year. That went down to plus 8 this year, still good obviously. We were outgained by 41 ypg last year and 53 this year, but last year outscored our opponents by 57 points and this year were outscored by 1. And it all adds up from going 8-5 to going 5-7.

I do think a summary of what happened flows fairly easily from looking hard at the statistics. While we played smashmouth football prior to this year, we played conservative, and at times passive, football. We did what we could do and we sat back and let the other team make the mistakes trying to make plays. And then we took advantage of it. Coach P is clearly moving us towards a more aggressive style of football, both offensively and defensively, and we were the worse for it in terms of wins and losses, I do think 7-5, playing our old way, was likely this year. But that does not mean P can't make us better, over a few years, switching to more aggressive schemes and attitudes. It also does not mean, TDH notwithstanding, that it will make us better. Will we improve at these schemes as they become more familiar? Yes, probably. P has never been an incompetent teacher as coach and I see no reason to think we won't see improvement executing his schemes. Are the schemes, when executed better, going to be better than the schemes Edsall executed? More importantly, will those schemes work for the players who the staff implementing them can bring to UConn? The answer is we will see. Nothing done this year proves we can or we can't. We hired this head coach, and we are going to have to see if, over a few years, the shift to aggressiveness on both sides of the ball will be a better way for this program to go.

And that is my bottom line on the staff as well. Was waiting until late September to pick a QB, in hindsight, a mistake? Probably. Was I angry that we didn't sit on the lead against Vandy? You bet. Did it make sense that there was no adjustment that could be made against WMU? Nope. Did I think the coaches handled the last two minutes of halves well. LMAO. But, while those kind of things probably kept us from being 7-5 this year, they are not important in the big scheme of things. Yes, we could have won more games with fewer changes being made immediately, but we could have won less if P did what our former coach did at Maryland and insisted on tearing everything down and having it be rebuilt from ground zero his way. P and his staff tried to find a balance, and if they didn't get it perfectly correct in year 1, especially in the start of the year when our die was cast, so be it. My bigger long term worry about this staff remains can they recruit, playing the rating services game, at a much higher level than where we've been. Will the class of 2012 be an improvement, to some degree? Yes. And can you fairly judge a staff's recruiting with a class who had started to be recruited before P got here? No. But I said this when P was hired and I will repeat it now -- he may win here, but he will not win here using the same strategy Randy Edsall used. He will not win here finishing seventh or eight every year in the recruiting rankings, and doing better than that by keeping things simple and doing remarkably well finding very talented football players that no one else wants. Ultimately, the success of P making this team more aggressive on both sides of the ball, and taking this team to a different level, will depend on him moving this program to another level in the recruiting rankings. Not an SEC level, because northeast kids will continue to be undervalued. But at least into the top half of our conference. To me, the jury is out on whether we can get there. But here is hoping we can.

Between new year and recruiting day, I will try to summarize our roster position by position to give us something to talk about. Happy holidays everyone. And to TDH -- may your stocking be stuffed with happy dreams of 400 plus passing yardage games.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
10,288
Reaction Score
3,858
Great job as usual Biz and Happy Holidays to you and everyone on board.

I'll just say this. Under RE I never had the feeling that we could make a huge improvement gain. We always played the bend don't break Def and had an offense which relied way too much on the run. Despite our record we clearly had a better balance, more open receivers, and a team that was much harder to prepare for. You encapsulated it very clearly below.

Coach P is clearly moving us towards a more aggressive style of football, both offensively and defensively, and we were the worse for it in terms of wins and losses, I do think 7-5, playing our old way, was likely this year. But that does not mean P can't make us better, over a few years, switching to more aggressive schemes and attitudes. It also does not mean, TDH notwithstanding, that it will make us better. Will we improve at these schemes as they become more familiar
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,409
Reaction Score
65,482
I agree with almost everything you said. I do think that the inability to manage the clock is something that needs to be rectified, because that is something that will cost you a game a year if you do it as poorly as this staff did in 2011.

I'm not sold on the staff, but there is no option then to hope they prove my doubts wrong.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
20,292
Reaction Score
44,351
I agree with almost everything you said. I do think that the inability to manage the clock is something that needs to be rectified, because that is something that will cost you a game a year if you do it as poorly as this staff did in 2011.

I'm not sold on the staff, but there is no option then to hope they prove my doubts wrong.

To be clear, yes, it does need to be rectified. My point was that the staff not doing it well, in their first year, was not something that tells me we will have a problem with it going foward. If we mishandle it as badly in year 2, I will think differently.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,866
Reaction Score
23,997
I agree with almost everything you said. I do think that the inability to manage the clock is something that needs to be rectified, because that is something that will cost you a game a year if you do it as poorly as this staff did in 2011.

I'm not sold on the staff, but there is no option then to hope they prove my doubts wrong.
I sometimes wonder it the clock issue didn't have at least some to do, with how poorly the QBs managed the play clock. Too many times this year we burned a time out because the playclock ran down on us. I hope this staff can get us to the "next level" which will be incredibly difficult regardless of who the coach/staff is.

BTW, props to BL and anyone else who has the patience to decipher stats/numbers like that.
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
31,576
Reaction Score
32,416
That is a better analysis than you'd find in most media outlets. You covered the secondary problems, but I'd be curious to see the number of 20+ yd plays allowed. The defense was routinely beaten on for long gains with many coming on 3rd down. I was not surprised that the QB play wasn't as statistically bad as it looked to the eyeball, but am shocked that it might have been a whole lot better if not for the number of wide open receivers that were missed.

Bottom line for me is still that this team was better than 5-7 and those three OOC losses were given away. I am not certain the 2012 squad will have more talent. Hopefully, the experience gained will help.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
6,492
Reaction Score
9,408
Excellent write up.

The change in sacks over the two seasons is probably the biggest factor in our failure on offense this year. Zach was outstanding and very underappreciated at sensing pressure and getting rid of the ball when he needed to and Johnny was not so good at it.

On defense the redzone failure rate really does stand out.

Great job of pinpointing the two most glaring weaknesses of this years team, sacks allowed and redzone defense. If we were just average at those two things we would probably have three more wins
 

fleudslipcon

We are UConn!! 4>>>1
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
15,371
Reaction Score
18,230
Excellent write up and analysis. You capture the major weakness on offense and defense that made the difference in wins vs. losses. And your statement about philosophy change from RE to PP regarding a more aggressive vs. conservative play is spot on. I would say the next two years are important, but there is too much impatience for that. I must be a lot younger than most people in that I don't mind waiting.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,409
Reaction Score
65,482
It's probably too much work, but I think everyone thought Edsall's defenses gave up a lot of conversions on third and longs. This season felt like an never ending string of third and long conversions.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,409
Reaction Score
65,482
To be clear, yes, it does need to be rectified. My point was that the staff not doing it well, in their first year, was not something that tells me we will have a problem with it going foward. If we mishandle it as badly in year 2, I will think differently.

Understood, but it's not something that can be excused away like some of the other issues.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,141
Reaction Score
5,902
Another wonderful write-up. Can't believe I'm gonna have to wait until August to read the preview for 2012. Alas.

Overall, I get the same feeling. We tried to change schemes and it cost us, but there's no information here which tells us if we can't succeed using new schemes going forward. And we certainly couldn't keep using former Coach's schemes. The past is the past, no sense in worrying about it now.

I especially appreciate all of the statistical analysis. What are you using to compile states? ESPN.com? Or some other site?

Thanks again for all of your contributions to the board. Boneyard wouldn't be the same without ya.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
20,292
Reaction Score
44,351
Another wonderful write-up. Can't believe I'm gonna have to wait until August to read the preview for 2012. Alas.

Overall, I get the same feeling. We tried to change schemes and it cost us, but there's no information here which tells us if we can't succeed using new schemes going forward. And we certainly couldn't keep using former Coach's schemes. The past is the past, no sense in worrying about it now.

I especially appreciate all of the statistical analysis. What are you using to compile states? ESPN.com? Or some other site?

Thanks again for all of your contributions to the board. Boneyard wouldn't be the same without ya.
l
Stats are all available on uconnhuskies.com. The statistics used all came from there.
 

ConnHuskBask

Shut Em Down!
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
8,059
Reaction Score
14,264
Thanks again for all of your contributions to the board. Boneyard wouldn't be the same without ya.

Great analysis on the sacks allowed and red zone defense.

While part of me wants to say we should have been better, part of me thinks we probably were the 5-7 team our record indicated. Aside from a few flashes throughout the season, this team never really passed the eye-test that would have led me to believe we should have been 7-5.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
1,889
Reaction Score
1,762
It's probably too much work, but I think everyone thought Edsall's defenses gave up a lot of conversions on third and longs. This season felt like an never ending string of third and long conversions.
Seriously! Do u remember the West V game? How many 3rd and.... (Well, u fill in the blank) did they torch us on!!!??? I swear to god I almost had an anurism during that game.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,558
Reaction Score
1,364
Over Biz, a terrific post. Lot's that most of us would agree with. Can't fault your effort or thoroughness.

That's not to say I agree with everything posted. Cases in point.

1. QB play was poor. No getting around it. One reason for the "better stats" was the fact UConn had to play from behind a lot - and therefore throw the ball more. It's why they need to pass more when they are ahead. Can't expect to do something well when things get urgent if you avoid it when you can work at establishing it as a strong part of the overall offensive scheme. Also there were a couple of games Cincy? West Virginia? where the offense (and passing stats) were padded with some "big plays" but only after the game was well out of hand. While these games were close, the offense both running and throwing was in absentia. So analyze away with the stats, the QB play flunked the "eyeball test"

2. The season was a disappointment because UConn really didn't beat "anybody". Come on: Fordham (1-AA), Buffalo (big deal), Syracuse (Huskies beat them everyyear), South Florida (a nice win at the time, but they sucked) and Rutgers (a nice win for rivalry purposes, but they dug a big hole for themselves with turnovers deep in their territory and gave the UConn offense two early Christmas presents). That's it, no real "big wins", the kind we saw in '09 & '10.

3. There was also an "element of good fortune" in the past two seasons that just didn't seem to be there this season. Randy's fourth down gamble against Pitt with Todman was an example of a play that changed the course of the season. Likewise, with West Virginia putting the ball on the carpet 7 times (losing four fumbles including one in OT) UConn had that game gift wrapped.

Overall though a nice evaluation and most of it observations I can agree with.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,411
Reaction Score
20,100
Over Biz, a terrific post. Lot's that most of us would agree with. Can't fault your effort or thoroughness.

That's not to say I agree with everything posted. Cases in point.

1. QB play was poor. No getting around it. One reason for the "better stats" was the fact UConn had to play from behind a lot - and therefore throw the ball more. It's why they need to pass more when they are ahead. Can't expect to do something well when things get urgent if you avoid it when you can work at establishing it as a strong part of the overall offensive scheme. Also there were a couple of games Cincy? West Virginia? where the offense (and passing stats) were padded with some "big plays" but only after the game was well out of hand. While these games were close, the offense both running and throwing was in absentia. So analyze away with the stats, the QB play flunked the "eyeball test"

2. The season was a disappointment because UConn really didn't beat "anybody". Come on: Fordham (1-AA), Buffalo (big deal), Syracuse (Huskies beat them everyyear), South Florida (a nice win at the time, but they sucked) and Rutgers (a nice win for rivalry purposes, but they dug a big hole for themselves with turnovers deep in their territory and gave the UConn offense two early Christmas presents). That's it, no real "big wins", the kind we saw in '09 & '10.

3. There was also an "element of good fortune" in the past two seasons that just didn't seem to be there this season. Randy's fourth down gamble against Pitt with Todman was an example of a play that changed the course of the season. Likewise, with West Virginia putting the ball on the carpet 7 times (losing four fumbles including one in OT) UConn had that game gift wrapped.

Overall though a nice evaluation and most of it observations I can agree with.

I whole heartedly agree with you on point #1. This is one of those examples where stats can be manipulated to prove just about anything you want to prove. The QB play was poor this year. The only other year that was poorer in my opinion was 06. I really believe that Mac had his mind made up who he was throwing to when they broke the huddle. And if that guy wasn't open, he went into the fetal position to prepare for the imaginary rush. Just wasn't adequate for this level of football.

In fairness to BL, I'm not sure he stated that the QB play was better this year. Only that it was statistically. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,866
Reaction Score
23,997
Over Biz, a terrific post. Lot's that most of us would agree with. Can't fault your effort or thoroughness.

That's not to say I agree with everything posted. Cases in point.

1. QB play was poor. No getting around it. One reason for the "better stats" was the fact UConn had to play from behind a lot - and therefore throw the ball more. It's why they need to pass more when they are ahead. Can't expect to do something well when things get urgent if you avoid it when you can work at establishing it as a strong part of the overall offensive scheme. Also there were a couple of games Cincy? West Virginia? where the offense (and passing stats) were padded with some "big plays" but only after the game was well out of hand. While these games were close, the offense both running and throwing was in absentia. So analyze away with the stats, the QB play flunked the "eyeball test"

I agree with this point as well. The only thing I'll say in defense of Mac is, when everything in a play went right, meaning the pass protection was excellent, and his first read was open, he showed ability to execute a more accurate pass than we're accustomed to seeing at UConn. I realize that may not be saying much, but I thought he was better than we've had. If we were the running threat we were in previous years I think JMac would have had better numbers. He simply doesn't have the physical gifts to carry a ball club.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
20,292
Reaction Score
44,351
I whole heartedly agree with you on point #1. This is one of those examples where stats can be manipulated to prove just about anything you want to prove. The QB play was poor this year. The only other year that was poorer in my opinion was 06. I really believe that Mac had his mind made up who he was throwing to when they broke the huddle. And if that guy wasn't open, he went into the fetal position to prepare for the imaginary rush. Just wasn't adequate for this level of football.

In fairness to BL, I'm not sure he stated that the QB play was better this year. Only that it was statistically. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

QB play this year was neither good nor good enough. I do believe, however, that the numbers do show that, if you ignore the sacks (which you can't) and focus on from the moment the ball left the QBs hands, JM was somewhat more effective than Zach was and the passing attack this year was better than the passing attack last year. Having said that, it is an incredibly low standard to surpass and not enough to get us to where we want or need to be.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,411
Reaction Score
20,100
QB play this year was neither good nor good enough. I do believe, however, that the numbers do show that, if you ignore the sacks (which you can't) and focus on from the moment the ball left the QBs hands, JM was somewhat more effective than Zach was and the passing attack this year was better than the passing attack last year. Having said that, it is an incredibly low standard to surpass and not enough to get us to where we want or need to be.

I hear what you're saying. But I'll take Zach Frazer and his inferior productivity over what we had this year. At least Zach was able to read through progressions and occasionally throw the ball away. This offense also produced many more wide open receivers who never saw the ball thrown their way. In this offense, I think Frazer would've done really well.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,409
Reaction Score
65,482
The amazing this is both Frazer and McEntee have the innate ability to throw balls that defensive players drop. They both could have thrown another half dozen picks very easily (and probably more for JMc).
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
596
Reaction Score
217
The amazing this is both Frazer and McEntee have the innate ability to throw balls that defensive players drop. They both could have thrown another half dozen picks very easily (and probably more for JMc).

Crazy, right? McEntee was extremely fortuntate this season.
 

mets1090

Probably returning some video tapes...
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
3,614
Reaction Score
1,594
This might sound a little unusual but I think a lot of people tend to discount how bad the average college defensive player is a catching the ball. Yeah in the NFL if it hits your hands it should be an interception, but there are countless would be pick 6's that get dropped week in and week out in college, even for top 25 programs. It's taken me a few years of watching a lot of college football to realize that. That's not to say that our QB's haven't been more fortunate than others, but it is something to consider.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,820
Reaction Score
20,816
It's probably too much work, but I think everyone thought Edsall's defenses gave up a lot of conversions on third and longs. This season felt like an never ending string of third and long conversions.

It happened ALOT under Edsall, but it felt like it happened more this season.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
24,322
Reaction Score
27,742
Another terrific effort by BizLaw.

So the offense was about the same, the defense was a bit worse as were the special teams. That's a fair assessment.

My beef this year is with the head coach. And it boils down to a few criticisms that I have not been shy about.

1. Declaring the QB race finished when only one QB was given a fair chance. What makes that worse is that P. broke his word. He said the race would be decided by production and then during the Vandy game he decided "continuity and flow" were more important. Soon after he handed the ball to Mac - who hadn't earned it with production- and doomed the season.

2. Get the ball to Nick Williams. Nick had one tough game where he dropped consecutive slants, however, he was the only Husky capable of turning a five yard pass into a touchdown. He won Buffalo game, almost won the WMU game, his ST plays were huge in the RU game and made a sensation catch against Cinny. Although Nick averaged over 20 yard-per-catch, he only caught 11 balls and in five games caught none at all. According to quotes. Deleone only apparently noticed that Nick should be part of the game plan after 10 games. YIKES!

3. The team seemed often to have trouble getting the correct personnel grouping onto the field. Once on the field we were hit with numerous illegal formations. What's worse is this continued throughout the season. Perhaps it was excusable against Vandy but it's a coach's responsibility to make sure the proper personnel are on the filed and lined up correctly. Yes, it is the coach's fault.

In short, this team had the talent to go 5-0 OOC and Cinny, L'vlle were winnable games. The players lost L'ville pretty much by themselves. But I expected much more from P. From now on, he gets judged on his actions not his words, so far, not so good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
446
Guests online
1,278
Total visitors
1,724

Forum statistics

Threads
172,315
Messages
4,277,690
Members
9,226
Latest member
DW1361


Top Bottom